Yesterday, whilst attempting to understand an infuriating equation for a Geography assignment in my school’s IT room, I overheard two people a couple of years younger than me having a political discussion about the Israeli-Lebanese War, which they had to mention in some current affairs homework for PSE or something.Anyway, as I was sitting opposite them, the conversation developed to the usual anti-Israeli rhetoric which most Middle Eastern discussions devolve into. The girl asked why Israel declared war on Lebanon, and was told by her friend that it was because the Lebanese ‘took two of their soldiers or shit like that’. This friend then went on to say ‘what assholes’ the Israelis were for declaring war on Lebanon at a whim like that, and the girl replied, describing the entire event on ‘fucking tight for the Arabs’.
All we need to do is read between the lines. Even the BBC seems to be biased these days. I think maybe I should seek a career change in future- BBC correspondent, Sderot, perhaps? When you have Hezbollah militants firing missiles into your territory and massacring civilians, what choice has any nation to do but force them to cease? After all, among the duties of any civilised nation is the moral obligation to defend its citizens- that is what I believe Israel was doing during its invasion of Lebanon. Which begs the question ‘oh, but Hezbollah are not representative of the Lebanese government, are they?’. Well, I think in most of the Arab states that border Israel, neither are the people whom they’re supposed to represent. Hezbollah do have a degree of control in the Lebanese Parliament, another third of which is pro-Syrian. I think all we need to do is listen to the rhetoric of a certain Bashar Al-Assad to ascertain that the Syrians aren’t exactly head over heels with the idea of Israel’s continued existence either. As for Iran, any president who openly states that ‘we should wipe Israel off the map’ is dangerous and should be treated with extreme caution. If the Iranians are discovered to possess nuclear weaponry, the Israelis have every right to a pre-emptive strike. And even more right to call it retaliation against Iranian aggression. Is it just me, or is it only Jews or those of Jewish heritage who are at all pro-Israeli? Israel is pictured as Goliath in Palestine’s titanic struggle against Israeli occupation- the reality is somewhat starker and much different- the 6 million Israelis are surrounded by five hostile Arab nations committed to its destruction, backed by a further 200 million Muslims in those countries who also remain vehemently anti-Israeli and in many cases anti-Semitic as a result.
I must point out here that I do not by any means equate being against Israel as being anti-Semitic, but am firmly committed to the belief that the majority of holocaust deniers, for example David Irving, are (he was more than happy to share a stage at Oxford with a BNP candidate, it’s important to note).
I’m also certainly not anti-Muslim. I have several close Muslim friends and lived in Turkey for four years- it certainly made me more open minded but in a manner of speaking I think we need to see the blunt facts- Israel is a nation under siege. It is a foregone conclusion that if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had occupied Israeli territory after the Yom Kippur or any other war against Israel, they would not have employed the Geneva Protocol to the Israelis living under their rule. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, home to some one million Israeli Arabs and Druze (who are represented fairly in the Knesset) and the region’s only MEDC.
Anti-Israelis will also make the point that Israel’s foundation was illegal. How can people who inherently rely on supporting Palestine’s cause through UN doctrine and laws then call a legal UN mandate a farce?
If one examines the amount of land controlled by Israel in 1948 after the mandate, it was a fraction of what it is today. I do not condone the actions of the Irgun and the Kibbutzim’s rapid expansion into legally Palestinian lands during that period, but it has to be stated that Mapai Party rule at the time was at best weak, with a poor economy and little diplomatic recognition. How can a nation fight for its survival if it has to also stop subversive and radical elements within its own populace? Deir Yassan was an atrocity. I admit that. But why should the Israel of today be blamed for that? Why should the Americans of today be blamed for My Lai, or the Germans of today be blamed for Ravensbruck or Auschwitz? The difference is that we should not forget. With events such a long time ago, the main crime is simply covering them up and insulting the memories of those who died or survived (for let us remember, for example, Holocaust victims who survived were traumatised and therefore were still victims).
That is why I did not feel any sympathy for David Irving in his Austrian prison cell. It was because he mocked the memories of other families and over twelve of my extended family who died in concentration camps.
But questioning the existence of Israel is not what we should be doing- Holocaust recognition did speed up nations’ recognising its existence, but many view Israel’s problems as rooted in the holocaust. I remember a quote from a German academic that ‘a German should never have to be in the position to point a gun at a Jew again’. That is the wrong attitude to take. If that Jew happens to have committed mass murder, the German, Hungarian, Austrian, or whoever has every right to order them to surrender at gunpoint. Not that I think anyone should even need to point guns at anyone, I hasten to add.
Israel’s lands did expand during the ensuing wars, but I think we do need to remember that it was, and still is, a relatively small area of land. Most of its widest area is taken up by the Negev Desert in the South, and during the early 1950s, the border with Jordan was within twenty miles of the Mediterranean Coast. Tel Aviv was within the sights of the Jordanian artillery gunners. It’s a miracle that Israel has survived- if we stopped our support for Israel, we’d be butchers. The State of Israel has had some pretty odious leaders- Golda Meir and Menachem Begin to name a few, but then again, I don’t recall them making any statements which can be paralleled with General Nasser’s famous ‘we will throw the Jews into the sea’.
The Palestinian rejection of every peace plan offered to them began in 1949 with the Mufti of Jerusalem’s constant rejection of any settlement from his residence in Cairo. Without any realisation of the suffering his obstinacy was causing his people, Hajj Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, a great admirer of Hitler and founder of the Bosnian SS division during the Second World War, sewed the seeds of discord which culminated in the situation we see today. Like uncle, like nephew. Yasser Arafat, the nephew of the Mufti, continued this process of constant rejection, and totally undermined Palestine’s cause in the Middle East. During his leadership, he embezzled $900 million from Palestinian state funds to his own personal wealth, supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and funded terrorist operations in Khartoum against Western diplomats. Two Palestinian mayors were assassinated after stating that they would rather their towns were under Israeli jurisdiction than Palestinian, and countless private radio stations and newspapers were shut down. Peace process wise, I am certainly in favour of a two or three state solution. Jerusalem can never be a totally peaceful city whilst Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims both inhabit it, so the only way forward for it must be independence, rather than a wall, as Mr. Sharon seemed to think was the best way of ‘breaking down barriers’. Whilst the West Bank must of course become Palestinian at some point in future- (the settlements are an abomination, I have to say) it would pose a distinct military threat to Israel. Yes, even in today’s world of chemical warfare and stealth fighters, Sun Tzu’s rules still apply in that whoever controls the highest land is more likely to ultimately win the battle.
Palestine’s ownership of the West Bank might mean its military alignment to Jordan. Then Israel really would be in trouble. Especially if Palestine continues to be led by Hamas, whose raison d’être is the destruction of Israel, I do not believe that Palestine and Israel can ever make peace. If the Palestinians really do want peace, next time they probably shouldn’t vote for Hamas in a democratic election. This kind of undermines the entire argument for a peace process involving any Palestinian delegations at all.
It would be nice to know that most people mean what they say when they talk of everyone ‘just making peace and getting along’. It’s an incredibly idealistic notion- if only it were as simple as the conflicts the League of Nations sorted out in the 1920s between Finland and Sweden, and Bulgaria and Greece.
With Israel, I wish the political parties of Balad, Hadash, Meretz-Yachad and to an extent Likud the best of luck. But to at least consider some small things. Like maybe moving the capital back to Tel Aviv, for a start.At the Basel Conference in 1897, Herzl was off by only one year when he predicted the establishment of a Jewish state in the following fifty years hence. People complain that the Israeli ideal of maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel is racist. Maybe one could say that, but the fact of the matter is that Israel is the only place where Jews can truly not fear anti-Semitism (at least, not from their own countrymen *Palestinian suicide bombers*). If the Jews become a minority in Israel, a secure Jewish nation will never ever happen. In that case, the Jews will have to kiss a life in safety from racist thugs goodbye.
Going to have to take issue with you on a few points there mate (so what else is new?), although not tonight as it’s 1 am and I can’t really think straight (also theres some shit about lessons tomorrow, suppose that counts as well).